Remember This: A Government of Laws, Not Men

A Foundational Principle at Risk

Our second President, John Adams, is given credit for coining the phrase “a government of laws, not men” when helping to create the Massachusetts Constitution. Somehow, our nation, in recent years, has turned this thought on its ear. From my perspective, this is more than terribly unfortunate. In my view, it is a precursor to the decline of a great Republic. When the law becomes a fungible commodity, bending itself to suit the preferences of any person or group, versus it being binding on all of us, we are in a world of hurt.

The Cost of Ignoring Federal Authority

This is not a problem restricted to one side of the political spectrum, but it should not include a requirement to not recognize facts as they are. We fought a Civil War (over slavery) to reaffirm that Federal law took precedence over state and local laws. It is estimated that between 620,000 and 750,000 lost their lives resolving the matter. If nothing else, we owe it to them to honor their memories by preserving this doctrine unless and until we amend the Constitution to change things.

Lessons from History: Enforcing the Law

It does not make things right when a state or locality decides to disregard the principle of Federal authority just because you agree with what is being done on a given matter. After the Supreme Court ruled there was no such thing as “separate but equal” when it came to racial issues, President Eisenhower used his authority to force southern public schools to integrate. State or local authorities, contrary to enforcing the Court’s decision, were eventually eradicated.

Modern-Day Challenges to Legal Consistency

Fast forward to dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. States and localities proudly declare they will not cooperate with federal authorities in the enforcement of the law as they create “Sanctuary Cities.”

In Rhode Island, legislation has been introduced to ban the hiring of former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers as law enforcement officials (police). No matter what you believe national policy should be, until the federal law is changed, or the Supreme Court rules that law to be Unconstitutional, failure to adhere to it does great harm and damage to the whole concept of the Federal law prevailing over the views of individuals on any topic where the law speaks clearly to it.

When the Law Becomes Political

We can agree to disagree over where those associated with the law have abused their authority. In my estimation, the multiple prosecutions of President Trump during the 2024 election simply undermines confidence in an impartial judicial system. Even the widely discredited Russiagate investigation during his first term emitted an unpleasant odor. No doubt, others can point to situations where they believe the shoe is on the other foot. What is important is that turning the law into a weapon to be used for political purposes is bad and wrong. Simple as that. When judges put their prejudices ahead of the law.

A Case Study in Judicial Authority

Recently, Las Vegas Justice Court Judge Eric Goodman ordered the release of career criminal Joshua Sanchez-Lopez, who had 30 prior arrests, including one for involuntary manslaughter. Sanchez-Lopez was to be released into the police department’s electronic monitoring system.

Las Vegas Sheriff Kevin McCall determined Sanchez-Lopez represented a danger to the community and has refused to release him. Do I think Judge Goodman was (to use a technical legal term) flat-assed wrong? Yes, I do. Do I believe that gives Sheriff McCall the right to ignore the order? I do not. Until a decision is reversed on appeal or rendered moot by a change in the law, all of us must yield to how the court has ruled.

Undermining the Supreme Court

Perhaps the most insidious behavior involves those who tirelessly work to put the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court into question. The quotes abound. An example would be from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who said “The MAGA Supreme Court is trampling on Americans’ rights.” Multiple individuals have promised to expand the Court in order to install Justices who agree with their views on policy.

A Call to Uphold the Rule of Law

Simply because a federal law does not suit your views should not result in you being allowed to ignore it. This is especially true for our public officials. A decision by the court that conflicts with your views does not give you the right to ignore it. That is why we have an appeals system. Finally, when the Supreme Court renders a decision you disagree with, that should not produce efforts to undermine faith in the judicial system as a whole, much less a promise to create a Supreme Court that conforms to your opinions.

Remember this: Being a nation governed by law and not men has well-served our nation throughout the years. Turning the idea upside down is a terrible idea and a threat to the Republic as a whole. What do you think?